ABSTRACT
Introduction 0RVW (XURSHDQ ERUGHUV KDYH EHHQ H[SHULHQFLQJ D ORQJODVWLQJ DQG RQJRLQJ erosion, which is an element of the continental integration process. However, together with the disappearance of the physical borderlines, the socially constructed limits visible in social, cultural and political behaviour are starting to play an LQFUHDVLQJO\ LPSRUWDQW UROH EHLQJ DW WKH VDPH WLPH PXFK PRUH GL൶FXOW WR ‘neutralize’. Additionally, integration processes at borders are marked by an interesting feature: on the one hand, they belong to traditionally understood national policies, where states negotiate the conditions of mutual relations, balance RI SRZHU DQGPDQLIHVWDWLRQV RI VRYHUHLJQW\ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG KRZHYHU WKH integration project is implemented locally by actors living and experiencing the ERUGHUVZKLFKFKDQQHOHYHU\GD\EHKDYLRXULQDVSHFL¿FZD\,QFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK these tensions, national policies are often referred to as ‘border sensitive’, where border actors are described as favouring border openness and liberalization. This vision will be partly undermined in this paper by examining one of the changes to a border resulting from eastern enlargement – cross-border urbanism at the *HUPDQ3ROLVKERUGHU,DQDO\VHDFRPSOH[VHWRILQWHUUHODWLRQVWKHUHVKRZLQJWKH complicated nature of local answers to the new challenges. 2QH RI WKH PRVW ¿HUFHO\ GHEDWHG HOHPHQWV RI WKH (XURSHDQ 8QLRQ¶V
HQODUJHPHQWLQ3RODQGZDVWKHWKUHDWRIDPDVVLYHLQÀX[RI*HUPDQVHVSHFLDOO\LQ border areas. Surprisingly, however, the reverse phenomenon started to become YLVLEOHYHU\TXLFNO\±3ROLVKPLJUDWLRQWRWKH*HUPDQVLGHQRWLFHDEOHHVSHFLDOO\LQ WKHDUHDVZKHUHXUEDQOLIHLVFRQFHQWUDWHG7KLVSURFHVVPDQLIHVWVLWVHOIGL൵HUHQWO\ DWWKHYDULRXVSDUWVRIWKHPRUHWKDQNPORQJERUGHU7KHDLPRIWKLVSDSHULVWR categorize various schemes of cross-border urbanism by examining three places ORFDWHGRQWKH*HUPDQ3ROLVKERUGHU/|FNQLW]6]F]HFLQ)UDQNIXUW2GHU6áXELFH DQG*|UOLW]=JRU]HOHFUHSUHVHQWLQJDFFRUGLQJO\WKHQRUWKHUQPLGGOHDQGVRXWKHUQ parts of the borderline, but also various combinations of spatial and social variables. 7KH\ PDQLIHVW WKUHH GL൵HUHQW SDWWHUQV RI FURVVERUGHU VXEXUEDQL]DWLRQ ZLWK consequences for polity creation, policy making and local cross-border politics. In WKH¿UVWFDVHWKHPHWURSROLVORFDWHGRQWKH3ROLVKVLGHQHLJKERXUVGHSRSXODWHGUXUDO DUHDVRQWKH*HUPDQVLGHZKLFKKDVUHVXOWHGLQVLJQL¿FDQW3ROLVKLPPLJUDWLRQ2Q
the one hand, this is encouraged by German local authorities; on the other hand, it FUHDWHVDQWL3ROLVKDWWLWXGHVDPRQJWKHORFDOSRSXODWLRQ7KHVHFRQGFDVHLVVWURQJO\ LQÀXHQFHGE\WKHFUHDWLRQRIDFRPPRQFURVVERUGHUGHYHORSPHQWVWUDWHJ\,QWKH WKLUGWKH*HUPDQVLGHLVWU\LQJWRDWWUDFW3ROHVWRVHWWOHGRZQLQFDUHIXOO\UHQRYDWHG *|UOLW] WR DYRLG D GHPRJUDSKLF DQG HFRQRPLF FDWDVWURSKH 7KLV FKDSWHU ZLOO LQYHVWLJDWHKRZWKHVHWRSGRZQSROLFLHVDUHUHÀHFWHGLQWKHSROLWLFDOSUDFWLFHVRIWKH 3ROHVDQG*HUPDQVRQERWKVLGHVRIWKHERUGHUH[DPLQLQJWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKHUH has been a bottom-up answer following the spatial deboundarization, and whether WKLVKDVUHVXOWHGLQVRFLDOUHIURQWLHUL]DWLRQ &RQFHSWXDOO\ WKHSDSHU LV EDVHGRQ WKUHH LGHDV¿UVW WKH FRQFHSWRI ERUGHU
WRZQV DV µODERUDWRULHV RI (XURSHDQ LQWHJUDWLRQ¶ *DVSDULQL ± FRQVLGHULQJ FURVVERUGHU XUEDQ VWUXFWXUHV DV VSRWV ZKHUHZLGHU FRQWLQHQWDO processes are concentrated and are much more observable; second, the models of de-and re-bordering, especially the two manifestations of de-boundarization and UHIURQWLHUL]DWLRQDVSKHQRPHQDGL൵HUHQWO\UHÀHFWHGDWVWDWHDQGVRFLDOOHYHOV .ULVWRI DQG ¿QDOO\ WKH FRQFHSW RI FURVVERUGHU JRYHUQDQFH DQG LWV GLPHQVLRQV *XDOLQL QDPHO\ SROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF LQVWLWXWLRQDO V\PEROLFDQGFRJQLWLYHHDFKZLWKFRUUHVSRQGLQJFRQVHTXHQFHVIRUFURVVERUGHU SROLF\SROLWLFVDQGSROLW\0HWKRGRORJLFDOO\WKHSDSHULVEDVHGRQERUGHUGLVFRXUVH DQDO\VLVVWDWLVWLFDODQDO\VLVHOHFWRUDOUHVXOWVDQGSXEOLFFHQVXVDQGVRFLRORJLFDO VXUYH\ DQDO\VLV H[DPLQLQJ WKH PXWXDO DWWLWXGHV RI 3ROHV DQG *HUPDQV IURP LQYHVWLJDWHGVHWWOHPHQWV,WFRQFHQWUDWHVRQWKHSHULRG±LQYHVWLJDWLQJ D WLPH RI LQWHQVLYH ERUGHU FKDQJHV LQ WKH ¿UVW GHFDGH RI WKH FRPPRQ (8 PHPEHUVKLSRI*HUPDQ\DQG3RODQG
Conceptual framework The starting point for understating the concept of ‘border’ can be reduced to the idea of distinguishing ‘us’ from ‘non-us’, considering it a tool of inclusion and exclusion. Borders are not static, however, in their location, forms and organization. They change over time, hardening or softening, both as physical barriers in the ¿HOG EXW DOVR DV VRFLDO FRQVWUXFWV DQG VRFLDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV .RORVVRY S7KLVFKDQJLQJQDWXUHRIERUGHUVLVUHÀHFWHGLQDFDGHPLFOLWHUDWXUHDERXW WKHLGHDRIERUGHULQJ%UNQHU1HZPDQ3RSHVFXYDQ+RXWXP DQGYDQ1DHUVVHQ.RORVVRYDQG6FRWWEXWDOVRGHERUGHULQJDQG UHERUGHULQJ.RORVVRYDQG6FRWWDVG\QDPLFDQGUHSHWLWLYHYDULDWLRQVRI the concept. De-bordering in particular is understood here as lowering the VLJQL¿FDQFH RI ERUGHUV HVSHFLDOO\ GXH WR WKH (XURSHDQ LQWHJUDWLRQ SURFHVV 2¶'RZGDQGWKH(8¶VHFRQRPLFVRFLDODQGFXOWXUDOSROLFLHV.RHSSHQ 7KLV FKDQJLQJ QDWXUH RI ERUGHUV YHU\ RIWHQ FUHDWHV GL൶FXOWLHV DQG FKDOOHQJHVIRUWKHDFWRUVLQYROYHG1HZPDQ7KLVKDSSHQVDPRQJRWKHU reasons, because borders are products of the past, and changing them is also about FKDQJLQJWKHSDVW2¶'RZGDQG:LOVRQS$WWKHVDPHWLPHGHERUGHULQJ R൵HUV PRUH IUHHGRP EXW FROOLGHV ZLWK WKH SULQFLSOH RI VHFXULW\ 2¶'RZG DQG :LOVRQS
I will claim, however, that to understand the changing nature of borders, the categories of de-bordering and re-bordering are too narrow in that they are referring to more or less regular cycles. An important element that is not duly considered when examining these processes is the changing forms of border organization. Consequently, I have proposed a new understanding of change based on the categories of boundary and frontier: boundarization and frontierization -DĔF]DND
Every border can be organized in at least two ways: as either a ‘frontier’ or a µERXQGDU\¶.ULVWRI7KHIRUPHUGRPLQDQWLQSUH:HVWSKDOLDQ(XURSHDQG UHLQWURGXFHG ZLWK WKH (XURSHDQ LQWHJUDWLRQ SURFHVV LV D VSDFH ZKHUH WKH LQÀXHQFHVFXOWXUHVYDOXHVDQGJRRGVRIQHLJKERXULQJSROLWLFDORUJDQLVPVRYHUODS :DOWHUVSS±%URZQLQJDQG-RHQQLHPLS,WLVD]RQH ZKHUH WZR HQWLWLHV RU VRFLDO V\VWHPV FDQPDNH FRQWDFW (YDQV DQG1HZQKDP SVRPHWLPHVDVRUWRIµQRPDQ¶VODQG¶$WWKHVRFLDOOHYHODWWLWXGHVRI openness dominate, marking at the same time the border as the states’ ‘beginning’ DQGµHQWU\¶ZLWKHOHPHQWVRIERWKVLGHVYLVLEOH2¶'RZGDQG:LOVRQ
The boundary form of border organization was crucial in the creation of modern VWDWHVSUHFLVHO\DQGOLQHDUO\VHWWLQJµPRUHRUOHVVVWULFWWHUULWRULDOOLPLWV¶(YDQV DQG1HZQKDPSDQGPDUNLQJH[FOXVLYHVRYHUHLJQWLHV2¶'RZGDQG :LOVRQ *HUPRQG 7KLV OHDGV WR OHJDO FXOWXUDO DQG HYHQ HWKQLF XQL¿FDWLRQZLWKLQWKHERXQGDULHVDQGDOLHQDWLRQIURPWKHHQWLWLHVORFDWHGRQWKH other side. There is not too much room for overlapping structures; uniformity dominates on each border side. The boundary, as opposed to the frontier, is more the ‘end of territory’ of a state. The changing nature of the construction of borders in Europe is marked by their de-and re-boundarization, as well as de-and re-frontierization. European integration, together with the creation and expansion of the Schengen area, has accelerated this process on two levels: spatial and social. +DYLQJEULHÀ\GLVFXVVHGWKHQDWXUHRIERUGHUVRQHFDQVWUHVVWKDWDERXWSHU
FHQWRI(XURSHDQVOLYHLQVHWWOHPHQWVORFDWHGOHVVWKDQNLORPHWUHVDZD\IURPD VWDWHERUGHU*DVSDULQLPDNLQJERUGHUVDQHOHPHQWRIHYHU\GD\H[SHULHQFH IRUDVLJQL¿FDQWSRUWLRQRI(XURSHDQV%RUGHUWRZQVDUHFRQVHTXHQWO\GHVFULEHG in Europe as forerunners of a continent-wide process, being laboratories of FRQWLQHQWDO LQWHJUDWLRQ SURFHVVHV *DVSDULQL ± ZKHUH VSHFL¿F phenomena concentrate and are more visible than from the continental perspective .DLVHUDQG1LNLIRURYD7KLVDSSURDFKGRZQVFDOHVWKH(XURSHDQSURMHFW considering border communities and border towns as laboratories of European LQWHJUDWLRQ ± VSDFHV GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP WKH VXUURXQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQW R൵HULQJ relatively controlled conditions, with the possibility of initiating and stopping VSHFL¿FSURFHVVHV-DĔF]DNEEHLQJFRQVHTXHQWO\ERWKDUWL¿FLDOO\FUHDWHG DQGDFWXDOO\H[LVWLQJ/DSRQFH$GGLWLRQDOO\FURVVERUGHUFRRSHUDWLRQDQG LQWHUDFWLRQV DOZD\V FRQWDLQ DQ HOHPHQW RI H[SHULPHQWDWLRQ -RHQQLHPL DQG 6HUJXQLQS-RXQL+lNOL SSRLQWVRXW WKDW µWKH(XURSHDQ Union […] can be seen as an experimentation […] allowing for local and transnational ties to bundle and overcome Europe’s all too territorial past.’
